Planning Advisory Service Viability Course GETTING AND USING ADVICE

Topics Getting and using advice Case Studies – Policy – Development Management

Questions about expert advice Where to get advice When to seek advice How to get the best out of advisers

Where to secure advice In-house – Valuer Obligations officer Out of house – District Valuer – Consultants Neither!

Procurement approaches Panel of consultants Main advisor (district valuer, in-house surveyor) Individually tendered to consultant

When to seek professional advice To inform a negotiating position in relation to a specific application or project To guide policy

The differences Policy studies – Higher degree of generalisation appropriate: typologies Standard assumptions about values & costs Not practical to consider how individual sites differ Specific schemes – Detail is required to achieve the required level of usefulness and accuracy

How to get the best out of advice Assessing value Assessing costs Procurement

Approaches to assessing value Sometimes just a phone call will suffice Surveyors reports – Liability restricts outputs Insist that all calculations and background information is provided Sensitivity analysis – Quantified market forecast Particularly from larger consultancies

Different kinds of firm For local firms, distinguish between chartered surveyors and estate agents – One knows valuation and appraisal; one knows local markets ITT requirements – A lot of smaller firms won’t be able to tick all the boxes E.g. H&S, Equal Opportunities, ISO, QA procedures

Assessing costs Need engineering and cost consultancy advice – Generally expensive Cut your cloth accordingly – Some needs can be more easily met than others – Is desktop study going to give you the answer you need?

Procurement advice The brief – Ask for explicit methodology Don’t ask open-ended questions – Be focused in what you want - avoid long ‘shopping lists’ The invitation – Likely to be wide and differing levels of suitability for the job Don’t get wrong firm at right price

CASE STUDIES Plan making Development management

Strategic advice – Liverpool SHLAA Numerous sites – 2,070 sites in the initial list – 1,122 sites after stripping out obvious non- starters – 460 further planning ‘commitments’ sites Visits to all sites >0.4ha (0.2ha in city centre) In a strategic study like this: – Not possible to assess physical constraints, availability and delivery in particular detail – And it’s not necessary

Site assessments All sites quickly assessed against ‘suitability’ and ‘availability’ criteria ‘Achievability’ (market/cost/delivery issues) assessed using 2-phase approach:

Site assessments…cont… – High level achievability assessments: informed by consultations with local estate agents/housebuilders and our Housing Market Commentary all sites >0.4 ha, and a sample of 120 sites <0.4 ha – Detailed development appraisals of a representative sample of sites (122 in total)

The Liverpool Study Area 12 sub-areas for ‘sampling’

Study findings Theoretical supply from the 1,122 sites – c.26,800 dwgs from the 420 sites assessed in detail (85% of the total) – c.4,600 dwgs from 702 small sites (15% of total) – c. 31,400 dwgs in total With commitments, the overall potential supply is c.48,000 dwgs The target is just under 45,000 dwgs So, there is sufficient land

Approach to site categorisation We assessed sites under 5 affordable housing scenarios: – Scenario1 – 0% affordable housing – Scenario 2 – 5% affordable housing – Scenario 3 – 15% affordable housing – Scenario 4 – 25% affordable housing – Scenario 5 – 40% affordable housing Under Scenario 1, c.41% of sites rated Cat 1 Decreases to c.24% under Scenario 5

Site Category Ratings – Achievability Scenario 1

Site Category Ratings – Achievability Scenario 2

Site Category Ratings – Achievability Scenario 3

Site Category Ratings – Achievability Scenario 4

Site Category Ratings – Achievability Scenario 5

Learning point “Simple models may outperform more complex and detailed viability models” Prof McAllister & Dr Wyatt (Reading University)

Site-specific advice – Canada Water, Southwark Source: Conrad Phoenix

Development management case study Key points – Viability a key issue – Resolving differences – a difficulty

2.31 ha site Occupied by 2 large retail sheds – 6,190m²

Proposed uses 430 residential units 4-10 storey buildings Two main “phases” (two architects) 9,104m² retail store (pre-let) 1,287m² of other A1/A3/A4/A5 space 644m² B1 office space 528m² D1/community space Basement car parking 340 cars Extensive public realm improvements

Application context Very experienced planner All other issues resolved – Design – Transport – Land use – etc

Viability context Southwark policy 35% affordable housing Southwark priority for full 106 = c £4m Developer offering <25% affordable Developer advised by Savills Three Dragons model agreed Southwark used Borough Valuer to review inputs

Viability issues Disagreement about important inputs – Purchase price – Build costs – Sales values Three Dragons model – Didn’t provide a solution parties could agree

Issues…cont… No site specific work commissioned by LBS – Relied on generic advice and local comparables – Developer had to commission some extra work on main disputed variables Over 25% affordable housing required politically

Resolution Valuers could not agree In the end, developer made an “offer” to settle -27% affordable housing Agreed to review viability at Phase 2

Lessons Highly competent DM officer but Did not fully understand viability – Forced to rely on internal advisor – Acted mainly as go-between for the two valuers – Could not intervene and negotiate effectively Result was a wasteful process – 9 months of negotiation between valuers – No mechanism for resolution Planners do need to understand viability for the DM process to be efficient